Abe Wehbi

Future foundations. In our new Lawyers Alert, legal market expert Jordan Furlong of Law21 offers his insightful perspective on building and sustaining a culture of investment within law firm partnerships, ultimately better positioning firms for future growth and prosperity. Read now: https://ow.ly/BgQj50S9Ks5 #Alert #LawyersAlert

3

🔔 Newsletter Alert! 🔔 We're excited to share the latest issue of our Construction Arbitration Newsletter (Issue 53). This edition covers critical legal insights, including: 1.) Hudson’s Formula & Overhead Losses: A deep dive into the Delhi High Court's ruling on the inapplicability of Hudson's formula without substantial evidence. 2.) Liquidated Damages & Arbitrability: Analyzing the nuanced interpretation of ‘excepted matters’ and their arbitrability by the Delhi High Court. These insights are vital for professionals navigating the complex landscape of construction contracts and arbitration. 📖 Dive into the full newsletter below: For more updates and expert insights, follow us at Rautray & Co. #ConstructionLaw #Arbitration #LegalInsights #LawFirm #Newsletter #RautrayAndCo

1

In our latest Lawyers for the Profession alert, we look at a recent Illinois appellate court decision that illustrates the importance of obtaining informed consent when law firms enter into arbitration agreements with clients. Here, the court held that an arbitration provision was unenforceable because the clients were not fully informed about the agreement's scope and impact, such as waiving their rights to a jury trial and discovery. Learn more about the ruling and key takeaways for law firms to consider when drafting attorney-client agreements: https://lnkd.in/gzsPtE8b By Terrence McAvoy and Ian King II #Arbitration #LegalMalpractice #ProfessionalLiability #LawFirms #Appellate

8

𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐚 𝐒𝐮𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝑯𝒐𝒉𝒆𝒏𝒔𝒉𝒆𝒍𝒕 𝒗. 𝑺𝒖𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒐𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒕 (review granted 6/12/24) California law (Code of Civil Procedure sections 1281.97-1281.99) provides that where a civil defendant successfully moves to compel arbitration in an employment or consumer case but then fails to timely pay the arbitration service’s fees, the plaintiff has the option of undoing the order compelling arbitration and returning to court and also requiring the trial court or arbitrator to impose monetary sanctions, as well as allowing the trial court or arbitrator to impose issue, evidentiary, or terminating sanctions, or to hold the defendant in contempt.   In this case, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, issued an opinion agreeing with most of the other Courts of Appeal to have confronted the issue that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt these provisions. Justice Wiley dissented, and the California Supreme Court granted review. The California Supreme Court will address whether these provisions impose a disproportionate burden on arbitration in contravention of the FAA’s mandate that arbitration agreements be treated on an equal footing with all other types of contracts. To view the docket, please click here: https://lnkd.in/g-GChAet To view other updates, visit: https://lnkd.in/gzGQP8K9 #Californialaw #appellatelaw

8